Supreme Court OKs Partial Birth Abortion Procedure Ban

[BoogyMan]

Good! Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure!


Source: Link (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ5JLG1&show_article=1)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.
For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

Kennedy's opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench.

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures—the medical term most often used by doctors—were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method—dismembering the fetus in the uterus—is available and, indeed, much more common.

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in part because it lacked a health exception.

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ... that the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.

While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

[Stoner]

About time common sense prevails.

[Alonzo]

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health

Really, who would want to protect a womans health? It's not like she's important or anything.

[BoogyMan]

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health

Really, who would want to protect a womans health? It's not like she's important or anything.


I think you might be taking your sarcasm a bit far here Zo. Nobody wants to endanger a woman's life, but the partial birth abortion is barbaric and it is a good thing that the ban was upheld.

[Alonzo]

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health

Really, who would want to protect a womans health? It's not like she's important or anything.


I think you might be taking your sarcasm a bit far here Zo.Â*Â*Nobody wants to endanger a woman's life, but the partial birth abortion is barbaric and it is a good thing that the ban was upheld.


Despite the fact that it may force a woman into a dangerous situation because it has no health exceptions?

[BoogyMan]

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health

Really, who would want to protect a womans health? It's not like she's important or anything.


I think you might be taking your sarcasm a bit far here Zo. Nobody wants to endanger a woman's life, but the partial birth abortion is barbaric and it is a good thing that the ban was upheld.


Despite the fact that it may force a woman into a dangerous situation because it has no health exceptions?


How many more children are practically brought into the world and then savagely murdered by the partial birth abortion practice Zo?

[Alonzo]

None.

But if I am to overlook your language, very few:

In the United States, 1.4% of abortions occur at 21 weeks or later[4](approximately 18,000 per year[5]). In 1997, the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions past 24 weeks to be 0.08% (approximately 1,032 per year).[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Definition_and_Frequency

And, if we allowed only for the health of the mother, how much lower would that number be?

I also wonder how many kids will grow up abused and beaten due to this ruling.

[BoogyMan]

None is now equal to 1032?Â*Â*Obfuscation, pure and simple.

[Elrathin]

Sorry Boogy, but one of the things that needs to be included is in instances where the mother's health is in danger. You are essentially saying that if a mother's health is in danger, screw it and have the kid anyway. Is that right?

I have no problems with state's deciding against abortion, but the health of the mother should ALWAYS be the priority over the baby.

[BoogyMan]

Sorry Boogy, but one of the things that needs to be included is in instances where the mother's health is in danger. You are essentially saying that if a mother's health is in danger, screw it and have the kid anyway. Is that right?

I have no problems with state's deciding against abortion, but the health of the mother should ALWAYS be the priority over the baby.


I don't believe that I have commented one way or the other as to an exception for the mother as of this point in the thread El. My commentary has been based on questions and assertions made by Zo.

I wouldn't have a problem with the mother's health being factored in as long as in ALL other circumstances the procedure is banned. It is barbaric and sick!

[Alonzo]

I don't believe that I have commented one way or the other as to an exception for the mother as of this point in the thread El. My commentary has been based on questions and assertions made by Zo.

Then you haven't been answering me correctly.



None is now equal to 1032? Obfuscation, pure and simple.

None:

"How many more children are practically brought into the world and then savagely murdered by the partial birth abortion practice Zo? "

But 1032 isn't a large number relative to the population:

a total of 1,186,039 legal abortions were reported to CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4911a1.htm

Or, to put it another way, .00087 of all abortions were carried out using this method.

Besides, there's a serious issue when people are placing the life of a fetus above the life of an adult woman, which excluding an exception for health does.

[BoogyMan]

None is now equal to 1032? Obfuscation, pure and simple.

None:

"How many more children are practically brought into the world and then savagely murdered by the partial birth abortion practice Zo? "

But 1032 isn't a large number relative to the population:

a total of 1,186,039 legal abortions were reported to CDC

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss4911a1.htm

Or, to put it another way, .00087 of all abortions were carried out using this method.

Besides, there's a serious issue when people are placing the life of a fetus above the life of an adult woman, which excluding an exception for health does.


Why does it matter to you how many babies were brutally murdered using this procedure, one is too many. Where is that righteous indignation that you seem to have for people who mistreat animals? Is a child not much more valuable than an animal Zo?

As for the health exception, it is disingenuous to beat that dead horse when I have already dealt with that in my response to Elrathin.

[wonder cow]

The principal here has nothing to do with partial birth abortion.

The issue is that the supreme court has upheld a restriction on abortion.

This opens up the door to return the abortion issue completely back over to the individual states by reversing Roe v. Wade in the near future, backed by the precedent of this case.

From a strictly constitutional view, Roe v. Wade was a croc. A perfect example of judicial activism. There is no "right to an abortion" in the constitution.

Even a "right to privacy" is a right that is inferred indirectly from a few different places in the constitution, like the 4th amendment, and not at all explicit.

Should abortion remain legal? Well, if the people would like it to be legal, then amend the constitution. Or work with the issue at the state level.

Personally, I’m sick of the right and left using this issue as a political lightening rod to motivate their base of support.

We need to at least treat the 1 million plus abortions that happen in this country every year as a serious health epidemic.

With the exception of a very tiny percentage, all of these abortions could have been avoided by simply avoiding the unwanted pregnancy to begin with. It’s a sorry damn shame that abortion is used as a means of birth control.

And if we would spend more time from this angle, there might actually be some progress on this issue, instead of the continued treadmill marathon of self righteous bullshitery that we have been running on for the last 30+ years.

[NortheastCynic]

Amen Wondercow.Â*Â*The only good thing about this ruling is that it opens the door for overturning Roe v. Wade [which was founded on absolutely ZERO Constitutional text].Â*Â*However, I'm conflicted because it DOES uphold a FEDERAL ban on a given abortion tactic.Â*Â*That said, the abortion tactic it upholds involves the killing of a living child, for all intents and purposes [hence the term partial birth].Â*Â*So my conflict is this: does the Federal government have the authority to born a medical practice that, the way I see it, kills a living person?Â*Â*In this instance I believe it does.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

The principal here has nothing to do with partial birth abortion.

The issue is that the supreme court has upheld a restriction on abortion.

This opens up the door to return the abortion issue completely back over to the individual states by reversing Roe v. Wade in the near future, backed by the precedent of this case.

From a strictly constitutional view, Roe v. Wade was a croc. A perfect example of judicial activism. There is no "right to an abortion" in the constitution.

Even a "right to privacy" is a right that is inferred indirectly from a few different places in the constitution, like the 4th amendment, and not at all explicit.

Should abortion remain legal? Well, if the people would like it to be legal, then amend the constitution. Or work with the issue at the state level.

Personally, I’m sick of the right and left using this issue as a political lightening rod to motivate their base of support.

We need to at least treat the 1 million plus abortions that happen in this country every year as a serious health epidemic.

With the exception of a very tiny percentage, all of these abortions could have been avoided by simply avoiding the unwanted pregnancy to begin with. It’s a sorry damn shame that abortion is used as a means of birth control.

And if we would spend more time from this angle, there might actually be some progress on this issue, instead of the continued treadmill marathon of self righteous bullshitery that we have been running on for the last 30+ years.


The principle has EVERYTHING to do with partial birth abortion WC. The procedure is abhorrent and sick and my disgust for it is based in the FACT that it is a callous act carried out against the most innocent and needy of us. It has NOTHING to do with what side of the ballot I punch on election day and I certainly am not making my arguments based on my politics.

[lily]

The principal here has nothing to do with partial birth abortion.

The issue is that the supreme court has upheld a restriction on abortion.

This opens up the door to return the abortion issue completely back over to the individual states by reversing Roe v. Wade in the near future, backed by the precedent of this case.

From a strictly constitutional view, Roe v. Wade was a croc. A perfect example of judicial activism. There is no "right to an abortion" in the constitution.

Even a "right to privacy" is a right that is inferred indirectly from a few different places in the constitution, like the 4th amendment, and not at all explicit.

Should abortion remain legal? Well, if the people would like it to be legal, then amend the constitution. Or work with the issue at the state level.

Personally, I’m sick of the right and left using this issue as a political lightening rod to motivate their base of support.

I know my strengths and weakness Wonder Cow and the Constitution is not one of my strong suits, so I'll read your's NC and all others on this subject and learn.

We need to at least treat the 1 million plus abortions that happen in this country every year as a serious health epidemic.

With the exception of a very tiny percentage, all of these abortions could have been avoided by simply avoiding the unwanted pregnancy to begin with. It’s a sorry damn shame that abortion is used as a means of birth control.

And if we would spend more time from this angle, there might actually be some progress on this issue, instead of the continued treadmill marathon of self righteous bullshitery that we have been running on for the last 30+ years.

I just don't see that 1 million figure as a %100 method of birth control. Shit happens. No woman in her right mind is going to carry a baby to almost full term and then decide on a whim that she doesn't want it anymore.

Northeast Cynic wrote:
That said, the abortion tactic it upholds involves the killing of a living child, for all intents and purposes [hence the term partial birth].

Yes it is a brutal method. One would think with the advances in medical science there would be some other way to do it. As Zo pointed out the percentage is very small. What this decision does it essentially make the woman an incubator. Why should the government be able to over ride what a doctor has told his patient will kill her?

[Alonzo]

Why does it matter to you how many babies were brutally murdered using this procedure, one is too many.Â*Â*Where is that righteous indignation that you seem to have for people who mistreat animals?Â*Â*Is a child not much more valuable than an animal Zo?

As for the health exception, it is disingenuous to beat that dead horse when I have already dealt with that in my response to Elrathin.


I wouldn't consider them babies. It's a fetus. One term is very subjective, one isn't. But it's also a part of the womans body, her concerns should override any other.

The fact that people support a bill that jeopardizes adult women to save a fetus is troubling.

[Caravaggio]

Actually I have a question about abortions...what do they do with the the so called "Tissue" that is removed.......do they give them a proper disposal (burial)..feed them to animals...or make "Solyent Green snack chips for wealthy liberals?


Another question.."Dad (Mom) what do you do at the Abortion Clinic"?...

"Back Off I`m A scientist"!

[Alonzo]

Why would you bury it? I would think they're either disposed of with hazardous waste, or wherever you'd dispose such a thing, or cremated.

[Professor]

This is a sad day for women everywhere.

[Elrathin]

It's nice to know there are MEN making decision for women's bodies. :rolleyes:

[Caravaggio]

Why would you bury it? I would think they're either disposed of with hazardous waste, or wherever you'd dispose such a thing, or cremated.


NATCH!

[BoogyMan]

I wouldn't consider them babies. It's a fetus. One term is very subjective, one isn't. But it's also a part of the womans body, her concerns should override any other.

I am glad you didn't get input to the decision then Zo. Is the child only lucky enough to be considered a baby by you if its head is actually removed from the mother? Like I said previously, this is a barbaric procedure that is beneath human decency. You would most likely go ballistic over were it done to an animal, but to a human you don't consider it a child even though late term.

[BoogyMan]

It's nice to know there are MEN making decision for women's bodies. :rolleyes:


Now there is some sad tired rhetoric that belittles the seriousness of the subject El.

[Alonzo]

It depends, has the animal been born yet?

Also, if the animal were going to be neglected, abused etc. I wouldn't oppose it.

Now there is some sad tired rhetoric that belittles the seriousness of the subject El.


Well it is a fact that abortion has more support among women than men.

[Elrathin]

Now there is some sad tired rhetoric that belittles the seriousness of the subject El.


Tired rhetoric? Nope, its the truth Boogy.

[BoogyMan]

Now there is some sad tired rhetoric that belittles the seriousness of the subject El.


Tired rhetoric? Nope, its the truth Boogy.


Hey El, it really is a tired old generalization that tries to avoid debate on the subject by appealing to the idea that men should have no input to the discussion of abortion.

[Alonzo]

Should men have input on abortion? The woman should allow his voice to be heard. But a man should have no right to input, and no right to be listened to.

It's simply a decency thing, something that you do for someone you care about. But he shouldn't be able to force it one way or the other.

[BoogyMan]

Should men have input on abortion? The woman should allow his voice to be heard. But a man should have no right to input, and no right to be listened to.

It's simply a decency thing, something that you do for someone you care about. But he shouldn't be able to force it one way or the other.


To quote your comment from earlier Zo, you aren't answering me correctly. Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

I think you have missed my meaning or I wasn't clear enough. I am not talking about the man involved with the woman in question, but men in general. It would seem that there are those who feel that men should have not input to laws regarding abortion; an assertion I whole heartedly reject.

[Alonzo]

Well, I don't think it should be anyone but the individuals choice, and I don't think men should have a right to have input in that decision.

I can't really decide if men should have an input in terms of abortion laws, but I don't think they should have an equal input.

[BoogyMan]

I can't really decide if men should have an input in terms of abortion laws, but I don't think they should have an equal input.


Do you support men voting on funding for research for maladyies affecting women? What about female lawmakers doing the same. The effect of your scenario sets up a scary precedent for lawmakers with regard not only to abortion law but just about every other law or funding legislation that affects people based on sex.

[Alonzo]

I think abortion is a unique case, as it involves the relationship between a woman and a possible future person. We're also voting on whether a woman can even undergo the procedure. That's different than what you mentioned.

Anyway, I said I don't have much of a position on this part.

[wonder cow]

The principle has EVERYTHING to do with partial birth abortion WC.

I defy anyone to show me proof of one example of where a child hanging half out of its mother was murdered by a Dr.

"partial birth" is a bullshit term used to illicit an emotional response from people.

On the other hand, Zo's quips about fetus vs. baby does the opposite. By insisting on the term fetus, we may be able to continue our delusion that abortion is not the slaughter of a human child.

Over 1 million abortions in this country can be eliminated yearly if we make a real effort to greatly reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Or we can all climb back up in our ivory towers and continue screaming at each other over the definition of life for the course of another 30 million abortions.

[Professor]

Over 1 million abortions in this country can be eliminated yearly if we make a real effort to greatly reduce unwanted pregnancies.


This is a valiad point. We need to focus on making less abortions by preventing them.

[NortheastCynic]

Yes it is a brutal method. One would think with the advances in medical science there would be some other way to do it. As Zo pointed out the percentage is very small. What this decision does it essentially make the woman an incubator. Why should the government be able to over ride what a doctor has told his patient will kill her?
Well, let's look at the law in question itself:
(13) (14) Pursuant to the testimony received duringextensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:

(A) Partial-birth abortion poses seriousrisks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, "there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin"; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

(B) There is no credible medical evidencethat partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.

(C) A prominent medical association hasconcluded that partial-birth abortion is "not an accepted medical practice," that it has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development," that "the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown," and that "there is no consensusamong obstetricians about its use". The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is "ethically wrong," and "is never the only appropriate procedure".

(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v.Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(E) The physician credited with developingthe partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortionprocedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence,Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such aprohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.

(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S.113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child "in a state of being born and before actual birth," was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a "person" under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a "person". Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.

(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed inthe medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are "ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb". According to this medical association, the " 'partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body".

(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses themedical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children -- obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child -Ñ and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.

(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.

(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.

(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

(N) Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting -- indeed it must act -- to prohibit this inhumane procedure.

(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned. Based on what I read, the Act essentially says that there is no substantial medical proof that partial birth abortion does improve the health of the mother.

Finally, and this should really be the end of the argument, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2002 DOES have a clause in it that nullifies the act in cases in which a partial birth abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother:§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
Case closed, the Act protects the life of the mother while subsequently protecting the life of the child to live. It is Constitutional and the Court ruled correctly.

LINK (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html)

-NC

[Alonzo]

Or we can all climb back up in our ivory towers and continue screaming at each other over the definition of life for the course of another 30 million abortions.

Control language and you can control opinion. There's no better example than "partial birth abortion". Pro-life is also a much better term than pro-choice.

On the other hand, Zo's quips about fetus vs. baby does the opposite. By insisting on the term fetus, we may be able to continue our delusion that abortion is not the slaughter of a human child.

Is it a child when it's a zygote? Something makes it a "child" in more than the biological sense. You need to define what that is.

[lily]

Based on what I read, the Act essentially says that there is no substantial medical proof that partial birth abortion does improve the health of the mother. Â*

Well, based on what you provided, the cure is worse than the "ailment". Again I'll ask you.....what gives congress or anyone the right to trump what my doctor is telling me? (Frist aside):P



Finally, and this should really be the end of the argument, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2002 DOES have a clause in it that nullifies the act in cases in which a partial birth abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother:[quote]§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

If you say so.........I guess I must have been reading the OP wrong or not understanding something here......because that is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled OUT.

Â*Â*

[NortheastCynic]

Well, based on what you provided, the cure is worse than the "ailment". Again I'll ask you.....what gives congress or anyone the right to trump what my doctor is telling me? (Frist aside)If you're doctor is telling you to birth an infant halfway and then kill it, Congress [and the Federal gov't in general] has the responsibility to stop it unless necessary to protect the mother. The fetus/child [whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter] is a living, breathing thing when it dies, therefor it is to be protected under the law.
If you say so.........I guess I must have been reading the OP wrong or not understanding something here......because that is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled OUT.
I am not saying it...the LAW that the Court upheld does:
§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.If the mother's life is at stake, she can have the procedure done.

-NC

[lily]

I am not saying it...the LAW that the Court upheld does:
§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.If the mother's life is at stake, she can have the procedure done.

-NC


Ginsburg states:

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

Also as I stated many posts before, with modern science there should be a less barbaric way to end a pregnancy than the way you are describing.......which upon reading there is.

[NortheastCynic]

I don't know what to tell you, Lily. I quote a part of the law that says: a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
and you quote Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying that the law doesn't say exactly what I quoted.

Regardless of Ms. Ginsburg's statement to the contrary, the law clearly states that if the mother's life is in jeopardy, the law doesn't apply.

-NC

[lily]

What am I missing here, NC? You quote a law from 2002 and Ginsburg is making a dissenting statement on what the court just ruled on in 2007.

[NortheastCynic]

Uh, Lily...The law she was ruling on IS the law from 2002.

-NC

[lily]

Then what you are trying to tell me is Ginsburg doesn't know what she's talking about and I am all up in arms about nothing?

[Alonzo]

Are you sure it's the same law? I could have sworn it was passed in 04 or 05.

[NortheastCynic]

No more than you're telling me that each of the other Supreme Court members don't know what they're talking about, Lily.

What I'm saying is that when Ginsburg said there was no provision regarding the mother's health that she was exagerating.Â*Â*There is a provision, it is just not as permissive as she would like.Â*Â*

Look at the law and the part I have in bold...Is that not an explicit statement containing a provision concerning the health of the mother?

On edit: Yep, that's the law.

-NC

[lily]

No more than you're telling me that each of the other Supreme Court members don't know what they're talking about, Lily.
That is not what I was trying to do.......I was trying to understand this.

[NortheastCynic]

I know that's not what you were trying to do, that was my point. You asked me if I was saying that Ginsburg didn't know what she was talking about. In response I said that I wasn't trying to do that any more that you were telling me that Scalia or Alito don't know what they are talking about.

Anyway back to the law, as I've quote, the law does in fact have a provision protecting the woman's life.

-NC

[Alonzo]

I found this part of the bill:

1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion — an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant — is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.


So, basically, they're saying it's never necessary and should be prohibited, yet it's allowed if necessary. The ruling seems to conclude that there is no such protection.

[NortheastCynic]

Then how do you explain this Zo:
§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.

-NC

[Alonzo]

They seem to directly conflict. But, considering partial birth abortion isn't the only method, just I believe the safest for the woman, that's probably why the court seems to view the first provision as overriding the one you quoted.

[lily]

I know that's not what you were trying to do, that was my point.Â*Â*You asked me if I was saying that Ginsburg didn't know what she was talking about.Â*Â*In response I said that I wasn't trying to do that any more that you were telling me that Scalia or Alito don't know what they are talking about. Â*

I guess we're on the same page, just different paragraghs, NC.;)

NC wrote:
Anyway back to the law, as I've quote, the law does in fact have a provision protecting the woman's life.

Zo wrote:

So, basically, they're saying it's never necessary and should be prohibited, yet it's allowed if necessary. The ruling seems to conclude that there is no such protection.

Ok.....I'm going to let you two have a turn and see if I can find out my answer later. There are different forms of aborting a child at a late date, though this one from what I've read is the most convient for the doctor and less expensive for the woman. Help me, PLEASE, because in order to read these bills, I need for a stiff drink. To be honest, they confuse me. Are they just banning (humor me here NC) this type of abortion, or any late term abortion?

[Alonzo]

They're just banning a certain form of abortion which, in my understanding, is the safest form of late term abortion in many situations.

Though the term "partial birth abortion" isn't a medical term. It's a loaded, and highly effective, word that the pro-life movement came up with.

[lily]

They're just banning a certain form of abortion which, in my understanding, is the safest form of late term abortion in many situations.

Well in that case I owe NC a "you were right" and you a thank you. Actually, I don't think it's the safest, but it is the easiest.

Though the term "partial birth abortion" isn't a medical term. It's a loaded, and highly effective, word that the pro-life movement came up with.

Then, just so I have this right......they are just banning that form, the one where they suck the babies brain out and not any other form of late term abortion? That I can stand behind.

[Alonzo]

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman.

That's from the original article.

[lily]

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman.

That's from the original article.



Not to nit-pick.....but it said sometimes. Also not to keep harping, but there are other methods to do late term abortions. As long as they are not banning all forms, I have to say I'm ok with this particular method being gone. It's archaic, science has come further than that.

Most women won't carry a baby for that long and then just change their minds. There has to be a reason for aborting at that late date. Be it the health of the mother or the health of the baby. Most women don't choose abortion at the drop of a hat as some (not you) think. It's a serious decision and one they think about long after.

[Alonzo]

Some women misjudge when they conceived, some don't even know they're pregnant. This actually happened to my very overweight cousin. She found out when her water broke. Other reasons are due to dramatic change in living arrangements or financial situation, and mental and physical health conditions.

If it's the safest form in some situations, then there's no reason to force women to undergo a more dangerous form of abortion even though the same exact thing is being aborted either way.

[lily]

Some women misjudge when they conceived, some don't even know they're pregnant. This actually happened to my very overweight cousin. She found out when her water broke. Other reasons are due to dramatic change in living arrangements or financial situation, and mental and physical health conditions.

Yes, I agree and this is why I wanted to be certain that late term abortions were not being banned.

If it's the safest form in some situations, then there's no reason to force women to undergo a more dangerous form of abortion even though the same exact thing is being aborted either way.

I'm still not conviced that it is the safest. Yes the same thing is being aborted anyway.....but there are more humane ways of doing it, injections for one.

[wonder cow]

Something makes it a "child" in more than the biological sense. You need to define what that is.

You've already defined it. It seems to me, your argument is inside the womb < child, outside the womb = human child.

But the definition is not based on logic, but rather your political opinion about abortion.

[Alonzo]

Something makes it a "child" in more than the biological sense. You need to define what that is.

You've already defined it. It seems to me, your argument is inside the womb < child, outside the womb = human child.

But the definition is not based on logic, but rather your political opinion about abortion.


It is biologically a person from the moment of conception. It is not an accurate term though, due to the additional moral and spiritual meanings given to such terms. It's misleading to label 4 cells a person, just as it's misleading to label a fetus a child. Fetus, embryo and zygote are more accurate terms that don't carry loaded meanings.

[Caravaggio]

Hillary: Court Ruling Stabs Women in Back of Head
by Scott Ott

(2007-04-19) — Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart upholding the right of Congress and state legislatures to regulate abortion and, in particular, to ban partial-birth abortion, is “a blade to the back of the head of every woman in America,� according to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

“I know I speak for my sisters across the nation,� said Sen. Clinton, “when I say that I feel like someone grabbed me by the ankles, and jammed a pair of scissors into the base of my skull and then just sucked my brains out. This is devastating to our freedoms and our sense of who we are as the largest minority group in America.�

Mrs. Clinton derided the justices who comprised the majority in the 5-4 ruling as “a gang of callous right-wingers who slaughtered the civil rights of women just as we are about to experience a new birth of freedom with the election of the first female president.�

“All that potential, all that hope is now tossed down the garbage chute,� she said, “and all because five selfish judges decided that their so-called ‘right to choose’ supersedes the life of the women’s movement. It’s despicable.�